Discussion (13) ¬

Anti-vaccine sentimentality is one of those weird things: a positive and practical skepticism but matched with unhealthy fear and a lack of knowledge of statistics. I figure the sentiments were borne out of a genuine desire not to vaccinate people unnecessarily for things that they are not at risk for — for instance, smallpox has all but been eliminated — but then got confounded and complicated by people misattributing vaccination as the cause of disorders because of the misguided popular belief that correlation implies causation (even when they are fully aware that it is wrong to do so, they still do it anyway).

As for climate change deniers, I dunno, I’ve seen some pretty intractable deniers. Take a look at the comment threads on The Weather Network sometime, but be warned, for if you stare into the Abyss it stares back at thee. And for Cthulhu’s sake don’t reply, no matter how frothingly crazy they seem, because they thrive on it. It’s like they’re trolls but not even purposefully being trolls. That site is probably the trope example for “someone dies… inside”.

I’m personally not a fan of most vaccination, but I think it has its purpose. I think it causes certain viruses to mutate and become stronger faster than our natural immune systems can cope, making us dependent on more and more radical variants of the vaccines—see the flu vaccine which also has a decaying efficacy the more it’s utilized. Plus a side effect of the flu shot is GBS disorder, a polio-like disease. Though it’s rare—you’re about twice as likely to suffer from the paralytic side effect as you are to be shot in the united states, according to the CDC’s numbers—it’s a possibility. Of course, I personally avoid the flu shot because pneumonia is a more common side-effect and I’m personally already fairly susceptible to pneumonia, so the risk’s too great for me.

On the other hand, there are some diseases that have effectively been conquered because of focused vaccination that saved many millions of lives. As such, vaccination’s a great tool when used properly. My biggest problems toward it is overuse/abuse of the system and pushes to mandate vaccination by the government. Overuse/abuse because it damages the natural immune system while strengthening the disease strains. Mandates because I have trouble trusting the government’s(or anyone’s, really) good will whenever I’m ‘given’ something by force rather than by persuasion.

As to climate change, that really is a hairy topic. Technically, we’re in an ice age. Polar ice caps are an unusual state on this planet. They should, according to our geologic records, be melted and recede over time at roughly the rate we’re seeing now. The potential but unproven human effect is a fraction of a degree, and much of the data that has been used in the past has been tainted. Not to mention that it was used as proof of both global cooling and global warming both.

It’s possible that we’ve developed better numbers and methods for prediction, but too many of the assertions made about the dangers of petrochemical use deny that a) petrochemical fuel is cleaner than the fuels we used before it, b) affordable petrochemical fuel greatly aids in improvement of quality of life, especially in poorer areas, and c) that the carbon emissions from the petrochemicals are actually part of the carbon cycle of the planet, not some man-made addition. Plus, ironically, of the “greener” forms of energy, both solar and wind often leave a larger petrochemical footprint than plain petrochemical plants do. Without actual severe climate control/change, the polar caps will recede to nothing eventually. It’s the natural path our planet takes. We may have some small influence on it, but it has been in process since before recorded history. And I don’t think any of the projections I’ve seen are rational considering the speed by which human innovation has been progressing. They assume that we remain within our current technological paradigm, but it has been changing so quickly in the past handful of decades without sign of slowing that we will push past this stage into something more efficient before we can cause any truly serious damage unless we’re forced down some other path by fearmongering against study of such new technology. For example, nuclear and geothermal.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, vaccines have a massive benefit and I’m very pro-vaccine, and even anti-choice in the matter. I do feel it’s healthy skepticism to oppose being forced to take medications, not to mention the potential slippery slope it represents: if you can be forced to take healthy medications after a rigid evaluation process, who’s to stop them from squeaking legislation through that forces you to take not-so-healthy ones after an abridged or maliciously falsified evaluation?

I can therefore see why people will wittingly not immunize themselves against certain things, especially given the sheer economic magnitude of the vaccination process, the potential risk-reward evaluation, and the corporate influences on government and healthcare always need to be closely monitored.

Herd immunity is the major problem with this approach. Any possible vector can be an inroad for an infection. Flu and the like are largely dartboard-like in their outbreaks and the efficacy of the vaccines leave very much to be desired, except in the most vulnerable populations, but major diseases should in general be mandatorily immunized, since anyone who is not immunized becomes a vector.

Really, it’s just the crazies I don’t understand: anyone who believes that vaccines cause autism spectrum disorders, for instance. When r values start to get into the low fractions of a percent, they’re not only more than compensated for by pure random chance and coincidence but close to statistically significant proof of the complete opposite.